Factors correlated with bicycle commuting: A study in six small U.S. cities

International Journal of Sustainable Transportation

Volumn 5, Issue 2, 2011, Pages 91-110

  Handy, Susan L ^a   Xing, Yan ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

Bicycle commuting; Physical environment; Self selection; Social environment

Indexed keywords

CROSS-SECTIONAL STUDY; ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY; HEALTH BENEFITS; PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT; PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENTS; RESIDENTIAL PREFERENCE; SELF-SELECTION; SHORT DISTANCES; SOCIAL ENVIRONMENT; SOCIO-DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS;

HOUSES; PARKS; TRAFFIC CONGESTION;

BICYCLES;

ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUE; ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY; ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY; MITIGATION; TRAFFIC CONGESTION; WORKPLACE;

UNITED STATES;

EID: 78650756000     PISSN: 15568318     EISSN: 15568334     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/15568310903514789     Document Type: Article

References (28)

1. Allison PD. 1999. Logistic Regression Using the SAS System: Theory and Application. Cary, NC: SAS Institute.
2. Babbie E. 1998. The Practice of Social Research. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Company.
3. Baltes RM. 1996. Factors influencing nondiscretionary work trips by bicycle determined from 1990 U.S. Census metropolitan statistical area data. Transportation Research Record 1538:96-101.
4. Buehler T. 2007. Fifty years of bicycle policy in Davis, California. Unpublished Masters thesis.
5. Buehler T, Handy SL. 2008. Fifty years of bicycle policy in Davis, California. Transportation Research Record 2074:52-57.
6. Cao X, Mokhtarian PL, Handy SL. 2009. Examining the impacts of residential self-selection on travel behavior: A focus on empirical findings. Transport Reviews 28:1-37.
7. Deakin EA. 1985. Utilitarian cycling: A case study of the Bay Area and assessment of the market for commute cycling. Research Report, University of California at Berkeley; California Department of Transportation; FHWA, U.S. Department of Transportation.
8. Dickinson JE, Kingham S, Copsey S, Hougie DJP. 2003. Employer travel plans, Cycling and gender: Will travel plan measures improve the outlook for cycling to work in the UK? Transportation Research Part D 8:53-67.
9. Dill J, Carr T. 2003. Bicycle commuting and facilities in major U.S. cities: If you build them, commuters will use them. Transportation Research Record 1828:116-123.
10. Gatersleben B, Appleton KM. 2007. Contemplating cycling to work: Attitudes and perceptions in different stages of change. Transportation Research Part A 41: 302-312.
11. Geus B, Bourdeaudhuij DI, Jannes C, Meeusen R. 2008. Psychosocial and environmental factors associated with cycling for transport among a working population. Health Education Research 23:697-708.
12. Goldsmith SA. 1992. National bicycling and walking study, Case study no. 1: Reasons why bicycling and walking are not being used more extensively as travel modes. FHWA-PD-92-041. FHWA, U.S. Department of Transportation.
13. Killingsworth RE. 2003. Health promoting community design: A new paradigm to promote healthy and active communities. American Journal of Health Promotion 17:169-170.
14. Murphy NB, Knoblauch R. 2004. Hispanic pedestrian and bicycle safety. Washington, DC: The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and National Highway Transportation Safety Administration, July.
15. Nelson AC, Allen D. 1997. If you build them, commuters will use them. Association between bicycle facilities and bicycle commuting. Transportation Research Record 1578:79-83.
16. Ory TD. 2007. Structural equation modeling of relative desired travel amounts. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of California, Davis, CA, USA.
17. Parkin J, Wardman M, Page M. 2008. Estimation of the determinants of bicycle mode share for the journey to work using census data. Transportation 35:93-109.
18. Plaut PO. 2005. Non-motorized commuting in the U.S. Transportation Research D 10:347-356.
19. Pucher J, Buehler R. 2008. Making cycling irresistible: Lessons from the Netherlands, Denmark and Germany. Transport Reviews 28:495-528.
20. Pucher J, Dill J, Handy SL. 2010. Infrastructure, programs, and policies to increase bicycling: An international review. Preventive Medicine 50:106-125.
21. Sallis JF, Owen N. 2002. Ecological models of health behavior. In: Glanz K, Rimer BK, and Lewis FM (eds.), Health Behavior and Health Education: Theory, Research, and Practice. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, pp. 462-484.
22. Shafizadeh K, Niemeier D. 1997. Bicycle journey-to-work: Travel behavior characteristics and spatial attributes. Transportation Research Record 1578:84-90.
23. Stinson MA, Bhat CR. 2004. Frequency of bicycle commuting: Internet-based survey analysis. Transportation Research Record 1878:122-130.
24. Susilo YO, Maat K. 2007. The influence of the built environment to the trends in commuting journeys in the Netherlands. Transportation Research Board 86th Annual Meeting.
25. U.S. Census Bureau. 2005. American Community Survey. Available at http://factfinder. census.gov
26. Wardman M, Tight M, Page M. 2007. Factors influencing the propensity to cycle to work. Transportation Research Part A 41:339-350.
27. Williams J, Larson J. 1996. Promoting bicycle commuting: Understanding the customer. Transportation Quarterly 50:67-78.
28. Ye X, Pendyala R, Gottardi G. 2006. An explanation of the relationship between mode choice and complexity of trip chaining patterns. Transportation Research Part B 41:96-113.